Just one hour after the seven-hour-long terrorist attacks upon
the U.S. consulate in Benghazi began, our commander-in-chief, vice
president, secretary of defense and their national security team
gathered together in the Oval Office listening to phone calls from
American defenders desperately under siege and watching real-time video
of developments from a drone circling over the site. Yet they sent no
military aid that might have intervened in time to save lives. [1]

The cover page of October 21's New York Post also implies that President Obama was one of the "they" who let the victims die. (see right)[3]

Background

On September 11, 2012, an attack was launched by militants against
the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, resulting in the death of Ambassador
Christopher Stephens and three other men. The attack was monitored by
aerial drones and security cameras on the ground.

Surveillance Cameras

On October 12, The Daily Beast
reported that video footage from the United States consulate in
Benghazi, Libya, taken the night of the Sept. 11 anniversary attacks,
shows an organized group of armed men attacking the compound, according
to two U.S. intelligence officials who have seen the footage and are
involved in the ongoing investigation. The two officials tell The Daily
Beast that analysts are hoping to decipher the faces of the attackers
and match them up with known jihadists. Video from the compound’s
cameras debunk the initial line from the Obama administration that there
was a protest in front of the consulate on the night of the attacks.
The videos were filmed from multiple closed-circuit cameras
throughout the compound, and are at times grainy and hard to decipher.
There are also some gaps. There is no footage, for example, of
Ambassador Chris Stevens going into the safe room where he eventually
died from smoke inhalation. The footage at the gate of the compound is
taken from an angle that filmed the attackers from the side, so the
people in the crowd can mostly be seen in profile.[4]
On October 24, CBS News
correspondent Margaret Brennan reported that the FBI and State
Department have reviewed video from security cameras that captured the
attack on the consulate. The government security camera footage of the
attack was in the possession of local Libyans until the week of Oct. 1.
The video will be among the evidence that the State Department's review
board will analyze to determine who carried out the assault. Video of
the assault was recovered 20 days later from the more than 10 security
cameras at the compound. Brennan also reported that:
The audio feed of the attack was being monitored in real time in Washington by diplomatic security official Charlene Lamb.[5]

Drones

The U.S. government also has video from an overhead U.S. surveillance
drone that arrived for the final hour of the night battle at the
consulate compound and nearby annex.
[4]
In a briefing to reporters on September 25, 2012, Defense
Secretary Leon Panetta told reporters at the Pentagon that there was not
a clear enough picture of what was occurring on the ground in Benghazi
to send help. Panetta said there was no "real-time information" to be
able to act on, even though the U.S. military was prepared to do so.

"There's a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking going on here,"
Panetta said Thursday. "You don't deploy forces into harm's way without
knowing what's going on," Panetta said. "(We) felt we could not put
forces at risk in that situation."

U.S. officials argue that there was a period of several hours when
the fighting stopped before the mortars were fired at the annex, leading
officials to believe the attack was over.[6]
A defense official provided more context on Panetta's comments
about the decision-making involved in not sending U.S. troops to the
consulate being attacked in Benghazi, saying that there was a drone
aloft but not directly over the area at the time the attack began. The
drone was redirected and arrived in time to record some of the attack.
But he described what the drone saw as "looking down, seeing a bunch of
buildings and fires, a lot of chaos on the ground." and that it was not
possible to discern exactly what was happening.

"We didn't have good eyes on the situation. There were security
forces there on the ground, but they're in the middle of a firefight -
not sending a Sitrep (Situational Report).

The official could not reveal the specific reaction times for the
military's Fleet Anti Terrorism Security Teams, which are classified,
but said "it would be physically impossible for them to get there in
time to intervene in that attack from say, Rota, Spain." The official
said "these situations normally deteriorate over time ... but usually in
a few days, not two hours." He explained that even quick-reaction teams
are often positioned for places where intelligence shows a
"deteriorating situation" near an embassy.[7]

Lt Col. Tony Schafer Comments

On October 28, 2012, in an interview on Fox News, Lt. Col. Tony Schafer
told Fox News that sources had told him that the President was watching
the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya in real-time.
Schafer told Fox that "only the President" could have ordered backup for
the Americans who were under siege by terrorists so the President was
most certainly informed of the situation as it was unfolding. "I hate to
say this," Schafer said, "according to my sources, yes, [the President]
was one of those in the White House situation room in real-time
watching this. And the question becomes, 'What did the President do or
not do in the moments he saw this unveiling?' He -- only he -- could
issue a directive to Secretary of Defense Panetta to do something."[8] Shafer's comment was rebroadcast by several media outlets.[9]

Discussion

Where was President Obama on September 11, 2012?

After attending ceremonies to mark the anniversary of the September
11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the President and the Vice President meet
with Secretary of Defense for a regular meeting at 5:00pm, about one
hour 20 minutes after the attacks started.[10]

Who had access to the drone video feeds?

Conclusion

1. Schaffer's report is from an anonymous source.
2. Schaffer's anonoymous source is not corroborated by any other media.